Bender

Here is your problem: not everyone can work hard for a variety of reasons: - lack of marketable skills - disability - discrimination - lack of work: This will get worse in the near future. I predict the problems in this respect will lift of with self-driving cars. It is absurd that this would be a problem: our hopelessly outdated economic model makes us slow down automation and technological advancement. - voluntary work or all the useful things people do that doesn't currently clasify as "work" As a liberal, I also have to point out that there is no freedom of work now (unless you have very good credentials). Of course people get unhappy when they are not free in such an important aspect of their life. Will UBI solve everything by itself? Of course not, but it will solve the problems directly caused by our current system. When more people are happy, this problem will decrease.

It is pretty simple: the cost function, usually consisting of conscious and subconscious, rational and emotional components, favoured the irrational choice.

None of this has anything to do with UBI, which is an economic system. It's success does not depend on whether terrible people exist or not. It does indirectly alleviate the problem by reducing envy and attitudes like "they steal our jobs". It will also reduce general insecurity which in turn reduces us vs them sentiments. Moreover, crime rates of non-caucasians will drop dramatically when they no longer face financial stress. Lastly, criminal organisations will have a harder time exploiting the weak and desperate when there are much less weak and desperate. Given that LGBTQ hatred is on a steep decline worldwide, Nazi's aren't as popular as 70 years ago and aggression and crime rates are significantly decreasing worldwide, I do not share your pessimism that terrible people will always spoil the party.

None of this invalidates UBI. It does not prevent people from working harder to get more wealth. It will certainly reduce crime, given that our prisons are filled with poor people. I hope you aren't giving too much credibility to some anti-communist episode you saw as a kid. UBI is nothing like communism.

Off course. Fair warning: you could have a significantly increased risk of depression if you don't do anything useful (which is my definition of "work", as getting paid is no longer a necessity).

Unconditional basic income. Everything else will follow.

The large time constant will cause the D-action to react almost exclusively to sensor and digitisation noise. Any significant I-action is likely to cause an overshoot, which is exactly what he doesn't want, especially since he can't actively cool it down again. So a proportional control: sure. It will be slower, noisy and take more effort, but could be slightly more accurate.

How I understood it, he now has two beams with 16' and 4' span and a post in between. He wants to connect the two and remove the post to get a single beam with 20' span. Edit: I suppose the beams carry crossbeams which support the roof. Indeed an important point to consider if the original 16' beam was not dimensioned for a 20' span.

Check out welding helmets.

I think the distinction between conscious and subconscious decisions is rather fuzzy as both influence each other constantly. This is why I consider such distinctions irrelevant in the context of free will. The fact that people choose to ignore rational argument, consciously or not, is at best an illustration of that. I sometimes wonder whether people actually want to be in control. Some people give me the impression that they find comfort in having some subconscious flaws to blame .

Which is why it is useless to consider that part of the beam in a strength calculation, as it won't fail there. Moment will be biggest in the middle (since we don't have info on the load, I assume uniformly distributed load), and that is where such a beam fails. But the load situation considered here is with the post removed. In that case there is definitely a moment to be transmitted at that location. It is true that this position is not critical, so the connection can be considerably weaker than the beam without failing. I would strive to make it equally strong anyway to be on the safe side. Shear stresses are required to transmit the moment (and negligible shear force) from one part to the other, but overall in a beam which is more than 5+ times as long as it is high, nobody calculates shear forces.

PID is horrible to control temperature which usually has a large time constant and no means to actively cool after an overshoot. Just P will work but requires a voltage regulator. An Arduino does that with PWM, which is supported on only some of the outputs. It is not that difficult to implement, but for what is likely to be a first-time user, I'd stick to bang-bang for quick success. In this case I'd use bang-bang myself, and only look for alternatives if necessary.

Proportional control requires implementing PWM, and I doubt the possible gain would matter for a school project. The noise can also be annoying.

- Shear is negligible for such a beam. Only the moment matters. (Failure modes in wood can be complicated and can be caused by shear stress, but this stress is indirectly caused by the moment and not the shear force) - The new structure could very well be as strong as one with a single wooden beam, because steel is much stronger than wood. Depends on thicknesses. - relying on friction is quite common and reliable and has the additional advantage of less stress concentrations.

You also need some heating resistor to put inside (if it is water resistant) or wrap around the tube. Arduino can control relay to switch heater on and off. Usually you use a dead band: switch on at eg 49.5 and switch off at 50.5. (That is called a hysteresis controller or a bang-bang controller.)

It made sense when I first read it. Can be confusing.

You would only see a small part of Earth. Assuming an appropriately concave mirror, at the max height you can get a balloon, most of Earth will still be hidden behind the horizon.

How would you differentiate between a lead or a flesh arm? Both will continue to weigh down on the scale and the Archimedes force only depends on the displaced water, which is equal in both situations.

Apply whatever I said to any generic invention you want to make. You will need some proof of concept before you start a potentially successful kickstarter. Luckily it was never cheaper or easier to make one.

The problem with "how people generally conceive free will" is that want to be super-special with consciousness as some mystical property granting us that super-specialness. Often the unconsciousness is seen as not part of us and completely out of our control. That is complete nonsense. Our unconsciousness can be trained or reprogrammed, and obviously takes our preferences into account. I disagree with the notion that it is separate from us. Our unconsciousness can be flawed and reprogramming can be difficult. The fact that there are boundaries does not invalidate free will entirely. Personally, I have eg completely lost my existential angst through reason. Some other examples are my fear of heights which is almost entirely gone and the fact that at one point during my early twenties I decided that I can eat and enjoy all food. Before that most vegetables and several other dishes made me convulse. I don't know why other people can't make such decisions, but I refuse to accept that I am special that way.

Fair enough. My Atlantis alarm got triggered, but in retrospect, you didn't mention technology level.

If you have nothing new to add, why even bother making one at all?

And even more easily by civilisations not lost to history and human ingenuity.

You don't have to make a fully functional prototype; you have to build a proof of concept. With present 3D printing technology, you can probably make one for less then 1000€ , which shouldn't be a problem for an automation engineer.

Is the pressure drop over the heat exchanger specified in the data sheet? That is the pressure difference you are aiming for. Besides a valve, there are other ways to get a pressure difference. Bernouilli is an option, if you use a very large diameter (slow flow speed) T for the input and a small diameter (large flow speed) for the output. Another option could be that you direct the output of the exchanger to another part in your circuit where the pressure is lower, or the input to where it is higher.